Interesting map, those top cities that millennials are leaving are either shrinking (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland) or are extremely sprawling (Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix), Miami seems to be a bit of an outlier.

Should those trends continue I wonder how much it will effect the future success of these cities, especially the ones that are already shrinking?

It is interesting that, despite popular perception, millenials are leaving Portland. This also shows that it may be time to invent the concept of the Old Midwest (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St Louis, Toledo, Flint) vs the New Midwest (Minneapolis, Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Omaha, Grand Rapids, Iowa and the Dakotas). They are on clearly different tracks.

It is interesting that, despite popular perception, millenials are leaving Portland. This also shows that it may be time to invent the concept of the Old Midwest (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St Louis, Toledo, Flint) vs the New Midwest (Minneapolis, Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Omaha, Grand Rapids, Iowa and the Dakotas). They are on clearly different tracks.

Uhhh, no.

Chicago isn't the "old Midwest". That's ludicrous.

I'm sure the story is more complex than a simple interpretation that the red cities are the "cities of the past" and the green cities are the "cities of the future"

I'm sure the story is more complex than a simple interpretation that the red cities are the "cities of the past" and the green cities are the "cities of the future"

No but things like overall growth and economic performance generally correspond to where millenials are moving to and from in the Midwest. I don't know if you noticed but Chicago isn't doing that well these days, it was one of the last cities to come out of the recession and is now posting metro population losses.

No but things like overall growth and economic performance generally correspond to where millenials are moving to and from in the Midwest. I don't know if you noticed but Chicago isn't doing that well these days, it was one of the last cities to come out of the recession and is now posting metro population losses.

This means nothing, the situations of Chicago and other cities are more nuanced than that, the last thing we need are more arbitrary labels that box in cities that are hardly related as it is.

Are you going to make the case that LA isn't "doing well" either? Should we call it old california?

It is interesting that, despite popular perception, millenials are leaving Portland. This also shows that it may be time to invent the concept of the Old Midwest (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St Louis, Toledo, Flint) vs the New Midwest (Minneapolis, Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Omaha, Grand Rapids, Iowa and the Dakotas). They are on clearly different tracks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by balletomane

Interesting map, those top cities that millennials are leaving are either shrinking (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland) or are extremely sprawling (Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix), Miami seems to be a bit of an outlier.

Should those trends continue I wonder how much it will effect the future success of these cities, especially the ones that are already shrinking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef

No but things like overall growth and economic performance generally correspond to where millenials are moving to and from in the Midwest. I don't know if you noticed but Chicago isn't doing that well these days, it was one of the last cities to come out of the recession and is now posting metro population losses.

Are you serious?

Chicago metro has the highest employment numbers of all time right now. And the central area is going crazy. Chicago is building orders of magnitude more highrises than the entire Midwest and then some. For the Midwest, Chicago is not the "city of the past".

It is interesting that, despite popular perception, millenials are leaving Portland. This also shows that it may be time to invent the concept of the Old Midwest (Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St Louis, Toledo, Flint) vs the New Midwest (Minneapolis, Columbus, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Omaha, Grand Rapids, Iowa and the Dakotas). They are on clearly different tracks.

the door of slackerdom officially closed in 2008. portland recovered from the recession but in the process, bounced back too well. all of the punk rock baristas got priced out of the central city. the (lazy) days of lackadaisical whimsy and 400 dollar rent are over. now were just a boring big city with shiny apartments and bumpy streets but you better have your resume tuned up i guess. glad to see the midwest revving things up a bit too though, especially grand rapids. that town is great, one of my favorite mid sized cities. also this map is probably deceiving. young people might be coming and going but it doesn't break it down by race, just age. certain cities are seeing whites move in and blacks move out. even atlanta is seeing that trend. but other cities like indianapolis and minneapolis are seeing large black gains. so people are just on the move. i dont think it necessarily tells the whole tale.

And in another 10-15 years, these millennials will be fleeing the city in favor of the suburbs, as they settle down with their spouse and kids, replaced by the next generation of entitled 20 something college grads, living in cramped quarters with roommates, paying ridiculous rents and college loan payments while attempting to save enough for a down payment for a home which will be located outside of the city.

And in another 10-15 years, these millennials will be fleeing the city in favor of the suburbs, as they settle down with their spouse and kids, replaced by the next generation of entitled 20 something college grads, living in cramped quarters with roommates, paying ridiculous rents and college loan payments while attempting to save enough for a down payment for a home which will be located outside of the city.

I notice a green dot in Western North Carolina that would be my little blip on the map. I'm not at all surprised.

Neither is my partner. He's in charge of shepherding new hires through their first few months at one of the biggest employers in this part of the state. He sent me this youtube clip one day along with a litany of curse words to explain how ever word of it is the unvarnished truth:

__________________"Asheville air affects me like champagne; it goes to my head. I'm apt to do things for which I will be sorry in the grim dawn of New York." -- William G. Raoul, 1898"After 30 years here, all I know is Asheville is a place where old souls and terrible angels walk among us..." -- Dale Neal, 2015

Yeah, not sure where you get Cleveland from as one of the biggest drops. The map shows it green, and in the article there's a graph showing an increase of 1.5-2% (a big turn around for the CLE!). Speaking of my neighborhood alone (Ohio City) there has been alot of construction and rehabs lately, and I've seen and met alot of transplants. California seems to be the most common out of state license plates I see.

The article actually says: The biggest declines, however, tended to happen on the South and Midwest. Detroit, Miami, Richmond, Atlanta, and Phoenix all saw millennial population declines of 6% or more.

The article actually says: The biggest declines, however, tended to happen on the South and Midwest. Detroit, Miami, Richmond, Atlanta, and Phoenix all saw millennial population declines of 6% or more.

The one thing all of those cities have in common is lots of nonwhite (mostly black and Latino) millennials. It makes me wonder how much of this is domestic migration by young people of color to other areas with more opportunity.

Another thing to consider, as this is a metro-wide list, is that in 2005 a lot of millennials were still teenagers living with their parents. Depending upon the definition used at that time, the oldest millennials were either still in college or just a few years out of college. Hence a lot of the net decline could just be young people moving away from their parents home in the suburbs, along with the central city not being enough of a draw to make up the difference.

The one thing all of those cities have in common is lots of nonwhite (mostly black and Latino) millennials. It makes me wonder how much of this is domestic migration by young people of color to other areas with more opportunity.

Phoenix is a surprisingly Anglo city compared to, say, Tucson. Phoenix was essentially founded by westward migrating Americans rather than northward migrating Mexicans (and/or local native tribes) like Tucson. That said, I meet an awfully large number of people born and raised through college in Arizona who hav moved to the Bay Area and I bet there are even more of them in LA and San Diego--mostly white, though.

Phoenix is a surprisingly Anglo city compared to, say, Tucson. Phoenix was essentially founded by westward migrating Americans rather than northward migrating Mexicans (and/or local native tribes) like Tucson. That said, I meet an awfully large number of people born and raised through college in Arizona who hav moved to the Bay Area and I bet there are even more of them in LA and San Diego--mostly white, though.

Historically yes, Phoenix was an Anglo city not too long ago, while Tucson has always been much more 'Southwestern', similar to ABQ or El Paso. However, Phoenix, pop 1.6 million, has seen a huge shift in their demographics in the last 25 years. Non-Hispanic whites represent just 46.5% of the city (in 2010), it has surely dropped even lower in the past 7 years.

The data includes years during the GR years where Phoenix was one of the hardest hit regions the US, maybe that has something to do with it too. Also, like you said, in 2005 some millennials were only 15 years old.